On Strauss vs. Horton

Earlier this week I was talking to a friend of mine, a Ph.D student in comparative literature, about our views on the California Supreme Court's ruling on upholding Prop 8. I had written a letter to the editor of The Chicago Tribune, but they did not publish it. Nevertheless, I want to share with you all my letter.

I am going to be controversial and say that while the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss vs. Horton on May 26th was disheartening for me as a gay American, it was not shamefully despicable. On the contrary, it shows that the justices applied current California law even-handedly, admittedly putting aside their own personal convictions or political preferences.
The Court's objectivism is a triumph for our democracy that was weakened by Bush-era identity politics, but which is recovering with the recent inauguration of the new administration, and now with this lamentable, yet democratic, court opinion.

The people of California spoke and same-sex marriage was unfortunately not sanctioned by a vote of 52% in November 2008. As a result, the justices were asked to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, under the provisions of the California Constitution, as a permissible change to the state constitution. Given the provisions, the court ruled in favor of protecting the peoples’ right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process, which unfortunately and consequently, upheld Proposition 8.

The justices’ ruling is not deplorable, but it is to the current California constitution to which they are bound that is a shame. Commendably, they remained faithful to enforce all provisions of the California Constitution, which now includes the amendment added by Prop 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Critics of the court system most definitely cannot say that this court legislated from the bench because they justly perceived the state constitution for what the majority of Californians vote for it to become: a document that deliberately marginalizes a harmless minority based on weak intellectualism and misguided religious convictions; all characteristics of modern conservatism.

However, proposition 8 can be repealed in order to once again favor same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court is not opposed to, as is evident in their ruling in the Marriage Cases ruled in May 2008, which permitted same sex couples to wed. Given the amended California constitution, marriage equality can come now from the state legislature or, even better, from the people, and not from the bench. LGBT advocacy groups and its ilk would benefit by increasing educational outreach so that the next time Californians exercise their power of initiative to amend their constitution they embrace LGBT Americans into the fold of marriage.

As a gay, my views might sound like I am an advocate of Prop 8 but this is not true. I am an advocate of fair and just judicial review, and that is how I believe the California Supreme Court handled this case. I found in the Windy City Times, a newspaper for the LGBT community in Chicago, that John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of women's and gender studies, echoes my sentiment. To paraphrase briefly, he says that "Yes, I know about the many benefits marriage brings....But marriage won't get at the roots of homophobia. It would make a much bigger difference to campaign in school districts around the country". I think Dr. D'Emilio and my letter speaks for itself.